Wikileaks Galvanizing Neo-Conservatism?

That article demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of how the internet works. Not surprising for people who think censorship is a way to pacify the US population.

Are there significant groups who regularly consider the subject of pacifying the US population?
 
Are there significant groups who regularly consider the subject of pacifying the US population?

Conspiracy nuts seem to, but personally I find making more entertainment available is better to pacify a population than cutting it down.
 
That article demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of how the internet works. Not surprising for people who think censorship is a way to pacify the US population.
Irrelevant.

You asked for evidence that the US wants to control the Internet, not evidence that it can.
 
Irrelevant.

You asked for evidence that the US wants to control the Internet, not evidence that it can.

It doesn't even support that. When they don't understand what they're even talking about it's hard to make out that it's evidence that the US wants to censor the internet.
 
*bolding mine*

This is SO naive. All of you who remain convinced that the Intenet will be a bastion of untouchable speech for all eternity. Truly naive. Rather shocking really.

Why? I have more faith in a 16 year old's ability to circumvent anything the gov't can do.


Who said for all eternity?
 
Last edited:
It doesn't even support that. When they don't understand what they're even talking about it's hard to make out that it's evidence that the US wants to censor the internet.

It seems that you may be suffering from confirmation bias!


For example the article asserts: "In May 2009, Microsoft announced on its website that they would turn off the Windows Live Messenger service for Cuba, Syria, Iran, Sudan and North Korea, in accordance with US legislation."

Are the authors mistaken?
 
It seems that you may be suffering from confirmation bias!


For example the article asserts: "In May 2009, Microsoft announced on its website that they would turn off the Windows Live Messenger service for Cuba, Syria, Iran, Sudan and North Korea, in accordance with US legislation."

Are the authors mistaken?

No, that happened. You're analysis of what that means, however, is severely distorted.

The US had sanctions on all of those nations which, by US law, forbid US companies from doing business in them. Microsoft, being a US company, had to comply and stop their service in that country. Whether you agree with the sanctions is irrelevant, it's just the way it is, but it wasn't an act by the US to "censor" the internet.
 
*bolding mine*

This is SO naive. All of you who remain convinced that the Intenet will be a bastion of untouchable speech for all eternity. Truly naive. Rather shocking really.

It still is. Even the authoritarian Chinese regime has been unable to censor the internet from a population that constantly employs proxies and filter evasions changed names, directly typing the IP address, etc). Nothing can stop the free flow of information except for having little to no networked computers to the outside world (like in North Korea)

That is why even today CP, Phishing sites, Classified information and so on can still be accessed despite being illegal in most places.
 

Back
Top Bottom